Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A  Provider of Dry-Cleaning services

Representatives

Andrea Montanelli Peninsula

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002603

07/05/2024

The worker was employed by the employer from 25th of August 2023 to 6th of May 2024.

The worker at the time of her dismissal was working 26 hours per week.

As the worker was employed for less than twelve months, she did not have the requisite service to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 7th of May 2024 in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The worker submits that she was unfairly dismissed following an incident where she had walked out after being shouted at by the owner in front of colleagues.  The worker apologised for walking out, but her employment was terminated on the same day.

The worker stated that she was dismissed on 6th of May 2024 without being afforded the right to fair procedures.

The worker confirmed that she commenced in new employment on the 5th of June 2024 approximately four weeks after her dismissal.

The worker by way of background advised the hearing that she had worked for the employer for over eight months during which she had not received adequate training to operate the machines needed to perform her role.   The job consists of washing, drying and packaging blankets, duvets etc. using machinery to do so.    She submits that she was sent videos of how to operate machines which were hard to follow and unclear.

The worker submitted as an example  that instead of proper training on refilling the foil in a machine for wrapping blanket the supervisor made a video of another member of staff refilling the foil and expected staff to learn from that even though the video was unclear and hard to follow.

The worker advised the hearing that on the day in question she and three other staff were locked out of the building when they arrived at work as none of the four rostered staff had a key.  She stated that once they finally got into the building they carried out the tasks that would normally be completed.   The job consists of washing, drying and packaging blankets, duvets etc.   All blankets were folded on this day ready to be sent through the machine in which they noticed the plastic foil to wrap the blankets had snapped.

The worker submits that there were 4 girls in that day and between the 4 of them none had the training to fix the machine. When one of the owners came in and was made aware of the fact there was 4 untrained employees, and the work could not be completed he proceeded to scream at the worker saying how ludicrous it is that they could not do the job.  The worker got very upset as she states she goes into work to do her job, not to be screamed at and embarrassed.

The worker submits that following this incident she began to feel unwell and got a headache from getting into such a state from crying.   She stated that she was also feeling very mentally drained and exhausted from trying so hard to do the job but not having the correct training to do so.

The worker stated that on her break she decided to go home.   She added that she knows it was wrong to leave the building and not say anything to anybody but states that she was not thinking straight at that time.

The worker stated that when she got home and calmed down she later texted the manager to apologise for leaving and proceeded to explain the events of the morning and finally  apologised for leaving the team stuck on that day.

The worker states that the manager replied via a WhatsApp message which she deleted before the worker saw the message.  The manager then sent another message stating that the workers  contract of employment had been terminated followed by an email to say the same thing.

The worker advised the hearing that in her 8 months working there she never received a warning for anything or had never called in sick in the 8 months and had in fact received appraisal from the manager to compliment her on being a 'great team player'.

The worker states that this was the first occasion breaking the company’s rules and it was done out of pure frustration, exhaustion, embarrassment and from feeling unwell.

The worker added that the employer was well aware of the fact that staff were not trained on machinery and always replied 'we will train you during the week' 'we will train you next week'.

The worker added that  she has many messages on her phone where she has asked for help either on the duvet machine, the blanket machine, the folding machine, the dryers and changing the gas.

The employer in response to the claim advised the Commission that they were not engaging in this Industrial Relations complaint and would not be attending the hearing.   The employer did not attend the hearing.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me.

I note that the worker was dismissed following an incident where she had left the workplace without permission after being shouted at by the owner in front of colleagues.  The worker later that day contacted the manager and apologised for walking out, but the same day was notified that her employment was terminated.

The reason given for the workers dismissal was ‘Failure to demonstrate suitability for the role’.  The worker advised the hearing that she had passed her three-month probationary period some months prior to this and was notified of this by the manager after she had asked if she had passed her probation, she was told that she had passed and that her wage had increased by €1 per hour in recognition of same.   The worker was advised that the relevant form was on  the HR app and there was no need to sign anything.

The worker stated that she was dismissed on 6th of May 2024 without being afforded the right to fair procedures. 

The worker confirmed that she commenced in new employment on the 5th of June 2024 approximately four weeks after her dismissal.

I note the workers position that she had worked for the employer for over eight months during which she had not received adequate training to operate the machines needed to perform her role.

I note the position that the issue on the day in question arose due to the worker not being trained in how to operate/fix the machines and that the owner shouted at her as a result of same.  I note the workers position that she had repeatedly requested training, but it was not provided.

I note that the workers employment was terminated on the day of the incident without recourse to any procedures without warning or notice.  

The worker acknowledges that she should not have left the premises without notifying anyone but that she later apologised for this to her manager and outlined the circumstances of her walking out.

The worker advised the hearing that following her dismissal she was paid her outstanding wages but did not receive her entitlement to one weeks’ notice or payment in lieu of notice.  She also stated that she received some holiday pay on her termination but added that the amount received fell short of what she was due and that she was due another 20 hours holiday pay.

In considering this matter I note that the employer did not invoke any procedures in relation to the workers dismissal.

While the worker admits that she walked out following the incident on 6th of May and this may have contributed to her dismissal, the employer by not affording the worker due process prior to dismissing her rendered the dismissal unfair.   Accordingly, I find in favour of the worker, and I recommend that the employer pay her €2,000 in respect of her unfair dismissal.

In all of the circumstances of the dispute, and for the reasons stated, I recommend that the employer pay the worker €2,000 in respect of her unfair dismissal.